Original Article

Foldscope: Diagnostic Accuracy and Feasibility of its Use in

National Malaria Control Program
Sweta Gupta, Bijina John Mathews, Sai Nikhila Ghantaa, Krishna Chaitanya Amerneni, T. Karuna, Abhijit Pakhare1, Deepti Joshi2, Sagar Khadanga3
Departments of Microbiology, 1CFM, 2Pathology and 3Medicine, AIIMS, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract
Background: Malaria has been an important public health all over the globe. Although conventional light microscopy is the gold standard of
diagnosis, light microscopes are heavy, fragile, costly, and electricity dependent. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have become more popular
but perform badly in temperate climate. This is because the RDT kits require maintenance of cold chain for its optimal use. In this regard,
there is a recent interest in handheld malaria microscopy at the point of care in the field setting. Foldscopes are cheap, handy, nonfragile, and
use mobile camera for illumination. The purpose of the study was to find whether foldscope can be used in the national vector borne disease
control program (NVBDCP) in India. Methods: Ten laboratory technicians were trained in identifying malaria parasites using foldscope
and their mobiles. Later, they were provided with unassembled foldscope to document their test results for the preidentified malaria slides.
The blood smears were stained as per the protocol of NVBDCP. The report of the index test (foldscope microscopy) was compared with the
reference test (conventional microscopy). Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the index test was found to be 13.3% (6.257–26.18),
specificity of 97.78% (88.43–99.61), positive predictive value 85.71% (48.69–97.43), and negative predictive value 53.01% (42.38–63.38).
The devise failure rate and test failure rate were 20% and 11.7%. The kappa agreement between the index and reference microscopy was only
11% and the McNemar P < 0.01. Conclusion: The ×400 foldscope at its present magnification and illumination cannot be utilized in the field
under NVBDCP.

Keywords: Field study in malaria, foldscope, handheld microscope, malaria slide examination, malaria, national vector borne disease
control program

Introduction over years in the national malaria control programs, high

Malaria is a public health problem in several parts of the globe,
especially in Afro‑Asian countries. About 95% of the Indian
population reside in malaria endemic areas.[1] About 20% of the
population of India reside in hilly and tribal areas. However,
out of all malaria cases, about 80% of total malaria cases are
reported from these hilly, tribal, and difficult to access areas
of the country.[1] Malaria parasite detection by conventional
binocular bright field microscope using thick and thin smears
has been the gold standard.[2] However, the high cost of
microscopy, repeated power failure in rural areas, fragility of
microscope, and high cost of maintenance have opened the
door for rapid diagnostic tests (RDT). Although RDTs have
replaced the conventional binocular bright field microscopy
Received: 08‑10‑2020    Accepted: 17‑11‑2020    Published: 24‑05‑2021
ambient temperature and poor maintenance of cold chain
in storing the RDTs make them vulnerable to false result.
In addition to that for the epidemiological survey, malaria
microscopy is the key.
The conventional microscopes are heavy, fragile, costly,
and electricity dependent. In the last decade or so, there
has been a growing interest on handheld, handy, and cheap
microscopes.[3‑7] Some of the devices even use mobile phone
cameras to illuminate the object.[3,5,8] Handheld microscopes
with earlier mentioned advantages have been an exciting
Address for correspondence: Dr. Sagar Khadanga,
Department of Medicine, AIIMS, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh,
India.
E‑mail: drsagarkhadanga@gmail.com

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to
Access this article online remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit
Quick Response Code: is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Website: For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com
http://www.jmau.org/

How to cite this article: Gupta S, Mathews BJ, Ghantaa SN,

DOI: Amerneni KC, Karuna T, Pakhare A, et al. Foldscope: Diagnostic accuracy
10.4103/jmau.jmau_103_20 and feasibility of its use in national malaria control program. J Microsc
Ultrastruct 2022;10:114-7.

114 © 2021 Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
 Gupta, et al.: Foldscope and its utility in malaria control program

entry in the field of malaria microscopy. Foldscopes are
origami‑based paper microscopes developed by Dr. Manu
Prakash and team at Stanford University.[3] Foldscopes are
cheap about 500 Indian national rupees, light about 10 g, and
easy to carry in a laboratory coat which uses mobile flashlight
for illumination.[3] It is based on the principles of optical
design and origami. The sample is mounted on a slide and
viewed while panning and focusing with the operator’s thumb
with a magnifying scalability of 140–2180 times without the
requirement of immersion of oil as in Figure 1.[3]
Most of the handheld microscopes including foldscope
have been studied in controlled laboratory settings and by
experienced hands. There are absolutely scanty field‑based
studies for malaria with handheld microscopes. In this context,
the present study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic
accuracy of origami‑based paper foldscope (index test)
in comparison to the conventional binocular bright field
microscope (reference test) and its feasibility to use for national
malaria control program in India.
Methods
Design
This was a cross‑sectional diagnostic accuracy and feasibility
study.
Setting
The study was conducted at the Microbiology Laboratory
of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, and
malaria microscopy centers of Bhopal district recognized by
the Government of MP under the national vector borne disease
control program (NVBDCP) of the state.
Sampling and sample size
The slide positivity rate was approximately 0.5% for malaria
parasite. [1] With an expected malaria slide positivity of
approximately 0.5, sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 90%,
and precision of 90% with a confidence interval of 95%, the
required sample size was calculated to be 102. The same
number of samples were collected for the study purpose.
A consecutive sampling technique was used.
failure. Device failure was defined by the inability of the field
technician to get any image of the slide and test failure was
defined by the inability of the field technician to report positive
or negative for malaria parasite.
Analysis
The diagnostic screening test was evaluated by constructing a
2 × 2 table after excluding the test failure cases. The table was
finally analyzed by OpenEpi Version 3. Kappa agreement and
McNemar’s two‑sided P value were calculated by IBM SPSS
Statistics Version 24. The confidence interval was set at 95%
and level of significance P < 0.05.
Results
Out of the total 102 MP slides, 49 cases were positive and
53 cases were negative for MP in reference microscopy. Out
of the total 49 positive cases in reference microscopy, only
6 slides were positive by index microscopy test (true positive),
39 cases were reported to be negative (false negative), and
4 cases could not be commented either positive or negative. Out
of the total 53 negative cases in reference microscopy, 44 slides
were negative by index microscopy test (true negative), 1 case
was reported to be positive (false positive), and 8 cases could
not be commented either positive or negative. The values
of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative
predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios
are provided in Table 1.
The device failure rate was 20% (2/10), meaning that 2 of the
technicians out of the total 10 technicians required help later for
assembling the foldscope. Test failure cases were 12 in number
meaning that the index microscopy could not comment on either
positive or negative test. The test failure rate was 11.7% (12/102).
The various diagnostic test characteristics are provided in Table 1.
The Kappa measure of agreement between the reference and index
microscopy tests was 11.1% (0%–22.3%). The McNemar 2‑sided
P was significant (<0.001).
Discussion
Handheld microscopy at the point of care is the need of

Study procedure
The technicians identified by NVBDCP of the state were Table 1: Characteristics of the index test
provided a full 1‑day hands‑on training to use foldscope Parameter Estimate (%) 95% CIs (lower-upper)
by arranging a workshop. They were trained to the level Sensitivity 13.33 6.257-26.18
of agreement for 90% to detect positive and negative Specificity 97.78 88.43-99.61
results for malaria parasites using both the reference Positive predictive value 85.71 48.69-97.43
microscope (conventional light microscope) and index Negative predictive value 53.01 42.38-63.38
microscope (×400 foldscope). Later, they were provided Diagnostic accuracy 55.56 45.27-65.38
unassembled foldscope and advised to comment on the slides Likelihood ratio of a 6 0.1011-356.1
positive test
preidentified by NVBDCP. Both the Ethylene Diamine Tetra
Likelihood ratio of a 0.8864 0.8421-0.933
Acetic acid (EDTA) mixed venous blood smear or peripheral negative test
blood smear slides were accepted for the study. The blood Kappa agreement (%) 11 0-23
smears were stained by Jaswant Singh–Bhattacharji (JSB) stain Level of significance <0.001
as per the protocol of NVBDCP. They were asked to document McNemar P
observations as positive/negative/device failure and test CI: Confidence interval

Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure ¦ Volume 10 ¦ Issue 3 ¦ July-September 2022 115

 Gupta, et al.: Foldscope and its utility in malaria control program
Figure 1: Foldscope figure
the hour. Various researches have tried many devices using
different principles of optics to study infectious and other
environmental agents.[3‑21] However, there is only handful
of patient‑related studies about infectious agents. Majority
of them deal with human parasites.[3,4‑7] Interestingly, all of
these devices were smartphone compliant. We could identify
only one study related to malaria parasite in field conditions
by Coulibaly et al.[8] In our study with foldscope, the device
failure rate was 20%. As this is a new technique, never used
previously by the technicians, the device failure rate was pure
because of assembly techniques which were tackled easily
over the phone by video call. The device failure rate of 20%
seems acceptable which could have been reduced further on
the distribution of prerecorded video messages on the assembly
technique. The test failure rate in our study was 11.7%. It
means that in 12 out of 100 cases, the technician was not sure
whether the test is positive or negative. Earlier studies using
handheld devices for malaria or other parasitic infections did
not documented the device failure rate and test failure rates
and hence could not be compared.
As described in Table 1, the sensitivity and specificity of
our study were 13.3% and 97.7%, respectively. Coulibaly
et al. (2016) described the sensitivity and specificity of the
handheld light microscope as 80.2% and 100% respectively.
The difference seems to be because of different types of the
handheld microscope (Newton Nm1 microscope) and better
quality of mobile used by Coulibaly et al. (Samsung in our
study vs. iPhone). It is also to be noted that Coulibaly et al.
engaged only 4 technicians for double the sample size than
that of ours (10 technicians in our study). With the sensitivity
of 13.3%, the foldscope at this present form does not seem up
to mark to be used as a screening technique to replace gold
standard conventional microscopy. Although the specificity
looks impressive at 97.7%, with the negative predictive value
of over 50%, it also lacks the credibility of a confirmatory test.
It means it will be difficult to find out true negative cases. The
positive predictive value of 85.7% along with the extremely
116 Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure ¦ Volume 10 ¦ Issue 3 ¦ July-September 2022
low sensitivity of 13.3% means a lot of positive cases will
be missed while screening which has a huge implication in
the field settings. As per Coulibaly et al., the positive and
negative predictive values were 100% and 65.6%, respectively,
which definitely seem to be better than values of this work.
The possible explanation of better result by Coulibaly et al.
has already been explained above. The positive and negative
likelihood ratio of our study was 6 and <1, respectively. As
the negative likelihood ratio is <1, the treating physician can
never be sure withholding treatment in case of a negative test.
The likelihood ratios have not been documented by Coulibaly
et al. and hence could not be compared.
The agreement between the gold standard reference microscopy
and index microscopy (foldscope) is only 11% in the current
study. Coulibaly et al. also documented disagreement by the
Bland–Altman plotting in spite of a linear correlation ship
with Pearson’s 0.997. In the present study, McNemar test P
was <0.001 which is highly significant. It seems the ×400
foldscope at the present stage is not good enough for field
settings with an extremely low sensitivity. However, as other
forms of foldscope can magnify to the extent of 2000 times,
it seems extremely interesting to test other foldscopes in field
setting.
Conclusion
The foldscope is feasible to be used in a field setting under
NVBDCP. However, the diagnostic accuracy is low with
sensitivity of 13%, specificity of 97%, positive predictive
value of 85%, and negative predictive value of 53%. As the
agreement between the gold standard binocular bright field
reference microscopy and index bright field foldscope is
extremely low (11%) with significant McNemar test P, the
foldscope in its present magnification and illumination cannot
be utilized under NVBDCP for malaria microscopy in India.
Similar conclusion may also be derived for malaria control
programs across the globe.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the District Malaria Office, Bhopal.
Financial support and sponsorship
The project was funded by the Department of Biotechnology,
India. Foldscopes were acquired through the project.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Dhillon, G. P. “National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme--A
glimpse.” 2008:639-9.
2. Directorate of National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme.
National Framework for Malaria Elimination in India 2016–2030.
Directorate General of Health Services Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Govt of India: New Delhi, India 2016:1-43.
3. Cybulski JS, Clements J, Prakash M. Foldscope: origami-based paper
microscope. PloS one 2014;9:e98781.
4. Bogoch II, Andrews JR, Speich B, Utzinger J, Ame SM, Ali SM,
 Gupta, et al.: Foldscope and its utility in malaria control program
et al. Mobile phone microscopy for the diagnosis of soil‑transmitted
helminth infections: A proof‑of‑concept study. Am J Trop
Med Hyg 2013;88:626‑9.
5. Ephraim RK, Duah E, Cybulski JS, Prakash M, D’Ambrosio MV,
Fletcher DA, et al. Diagnosis of Schistosoma haematobium infection
with a mobile phone‑mounted Foldscope and a reversed‑lens CellScope
in Ghana. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015;92:1253‑6.
6. Coulibaly JT, Ouattara M, D’Ambrosio MV, Fletcher DA, Keiser J,
Utzinger J, et al. Accuracy of mobile phone and handheld light
microscopy for the diagnosis of schistosomiasis and intestinal protozoa
infections in Côte d’Ivoire. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016;10:e0004768.
7. D’Ambrosio MV, Bakalar M, Bennuru S, Reber C, Skandarajah A,
Nilsson L, et al. Point‑of‑care quantification of blood‑borne
filarial parasites with a mobile phone microscope. Sci Transl Med
2015;7:286re4.
8. Coulibaly JT, Ouattara M, Keiser J, Bonfoh B, N’Goran EK,
Andrews JR, et al. Evaluation of malaria diagnoses using a handheld
light microscope in a community‑based setting in rural Côte d’Ivoire.
Am J Trop Med Hyg 2016;95:831‑4.
9. Saeed MA, Jabbar A. “Smart diagnosis” of parasitic diseases by use of
smartphones. Journal of clinical microbiology 2018;56.
10. Orth A, Wilson ER, Thompson JG, Gibson BC. A dual-mode mobile
phone microscope using the onboard camera flash and ambient light.
Scientific reports 2018;8:1-8.
11. Abstracts from the International Science Symposium on HIV and
Infectious Diseases (ISSHID 2019): Infectious diseases. BMC Infect
Dis 2020;20 Suppl 1:324.
12. Accuracy of Mobile Phone and Handheld Light Microscopy for the
Diagnosis of Schistosomiasis and Intestinal Protozoa Infections in
Côte d’Ivoire. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004768. [Last accessed on 2020 Jul
09].
Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure ¦ Volume 10 ¦ Issue 3 ¦ July-September 2022
13. Naqvi A, Manglik N, Dudrey E, Perry C, Mulla ZD, Cervantes JL.
Evaluating the performance of a low-cost mobile phone attachable
microscope in cervical cytology. BMC women’s health 2020;2:1-6.
14. Zhang YS, Santiago GT, Alvarez MM, Schiff SJ, Boyden ES,
Khademhosseini A. Expansion mini‑microscopy: An enabling
alternative in point‑of‑care diagnostics. Curr Opin Biomed Eng
2017;1:45‑53.
15. Rajchgot J, Coulibaly JT, Keiser J, Utzinger J, Lo NC, Mondry MK,
et al, Bogoch II. Mobile-phone and handheld microscopy for neglected
tropical diseases. PLoS neglected tropical diseases 2017;11:e0005550.
16. Boppart SA, Richards‑Kortum R. Point‑of‑care and point‑of‑procedure
optical imaging technologies for primary care and global health. Sci
Transl Med 2014;6:253rv2.
17. Holmström O, Linder N, Ngasala B, Mårtensson A, Linder E, Lundin M,
et al. Point-of-care mobile digital microscopy and deep learning for the
detection of soil-transmitted helminths and Schistosoma haematobium.
Global health action 2017;10:1337325.
18. Wang W, Liu H, Yu Y, Cong F, Yu J. Rapid Yeast Cell Viability Analysis
by Using a Portable Microscope Based on the Fiber Optic Array and
Simple Image Processing. Sensors 2020;20:2092.
19. Hernández‑Neuta I, Neumann F, Brightmeyer J, Ba Tis T,
Madaboosi N, Wei Q, et al. Smartphone‑based clinical diagnostics:
Towards democratization of evidence-based health care. J Intern Med
2019;285:19‑39.
20. Prakash R, Prakash K. Virtual microscopy made economical and
effortless using the Foldscope and a smartphone with screen mirroring.
J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2019;23:292‑4.
21. McGenity TJ, Gessesse A, Hallsworth JE, Garcia Cela E,
Verheecke‑Vaessen C, Wang F, et al. Visualizing the invisible: Class
excursions to ignite children’s enthusiasm for microbes. Microb
Biotechnol 2020;13:844‑87.
117